DOCSLIB.ORG

FY 2016 Monitoring Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FY 2016 Monitoring Report Klamath National Forest FY 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation Report USDA FOREST SERVICE Fiscal Year 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation Report Klamath National Forest Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor 9/26/2017 This report is located on the Forest Service website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsm8_049843 USDA is an equal opportuniUSDAty provider is an equal and opportuniemployer.ty provider and employer. Klamath National Forest FY 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Geology ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Soils............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Biological Diversity .................................................................................................................................. 12 Sensitive Plants ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 Fisheries Management .............................................................................................................................. 26 Visual Resource Management .................................................................................................................. 39 Wilderness................................................................................................................................................. 44 Lands Program Management .................................................................................................................... 45 Timber Management ................................................................................................................................. 45 Fire Management ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Range Management .................................................................................................................................. 48 Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................................................... 55 Cultural Resource Management ................................................................................................................ 57 Planning .................................................................................................................................................... 58 List of Tables Table 1. High-severity acres from 2014 BAER reports. ............................................................................................8 Table 2. Annual peak stream flows at the Indian Creek USGS gauge near Happy Camp during the monitoring period. ...............................................................................................................................................................11 Table 3. Mid-Winter Bald Eagle Counts for Happy Camp/Oak Knoll and Salmon/Scott River Ranger Districts: 2007-2016. ........................................................................................................................................................20 Table 4. Willow flycatcher captures at Seiad Valley PCT1 Constant Effort Mist Netting Station: 2010‐2016.......23 Table 5. Fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Klamath River Basin ......................................................................36 Table 6. Forest Range Monitoring Data Summary for FY 2016 ..............................................................................51 List of Figures Figure 1. Trends in streambed fine sediment in watersheds that burned at a high burn severity in 2014.. ..............10 Figure 2. O’Neil Creek pond August 2016...............................................................................................................19 Figure 3. Fall Chinook redds observed on the Salmon River in 2015.. ....................................................................30 Figure 4. Salmon River run Size Estimates from 1978-2015 ...................................................................................31 Figure 5. Observation of fall Chinook during the fall of 2015 Salmon River surveys. ............................................31 Figure 6. Fall Chinook redds observed and survey effort on the Scott River in 2015.. ...........................................33 Figure 7. Low discharge barrier in Reach 6.. ...........................................................................................................33 Figure 8. Scott River fall run size estimates for 1978 to 2015.. ...............................................................................34 Figure 9. Observation of fall Chinook during the 2015 Scott River surveys. ..........................................................35 Figure 10. Example of how the disruption of historic wildfire cycles has resulted in much of the Forest appearing uncharacteristically dense with small vegetation and a lack of historic scenic variety.. ..................................40 Figure 11. Example post-treatment depicting a trend toward a more ecologically established Scenic Character, with more open forest conditions. (Goosenest Ranger District). ......................................................................41 Figure 12. Forest departure from its historic, ecologically established vegetation condition. .................................42 Figure 13. Post-treatment photo, resulting in open viewsheds, large tree character, a more resilient forest ecosystem, and a future visual environment that will support increased vegetative diversity (Salmon/Scott River Ranger District). .....................................................................................................................................43 ii Klamath National Forest FY 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation Report Introduction The 1995 Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan1 (Forest Plan), as amended, provides a list of monitoring projects that are intended to be conducted on a regular basis. This Fiscal Year 2016 (FY 2016) Monitoring and Evaluation Report documents the evaluation of monitoring information related to the Forest Plan from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. The objective of monitoring and evaluating Forest Plans is to determine whether programs and projects are meeting Forest Plan direction. Monitoring is the collection of information, on a sample basis, from sources identified in the Forest Plan. Evaluation of monitoring results is used to determine the effectiveness of the Forest Plan and the need either to change the Plan through amendment or revision or to continue with the Plan as written. Data are compared to data from past years, when appropriate. Monitoring results are emphasized rather than monitoring data. Evaluations are based on professional judgment when monitoring data are incomplete or lacking. This report and the resources discussed within it closely follow the format of the Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements outlined in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan (p. 5-11 through 5-14). Each resource section identifies monitoring objectives, methodology, analysis results, and further action required, as applicable. In some cases, monitoring was not conducted as specified in the Plan. While most monitoring activities are accomplished on the prescribed schedule, some have been delayed due to funding shortfalls, lack of priority compared with other program needs, or lack of activity in that management program. Monitoring activities, if they occurred in addition to those identified in Chapter 5, are listed at the end of each resource area. Geology A. Landslides Objectives: Test assumptions for landslide sediment production rates in the Forest Plan. Determine effectiveness of standards and guidelines in reducing landslide rates. Methodology: Forest-wide landslide production rates can only be effectively monitored after landslide-producing storms. No new active landslides were reported by the Forest in FY 2016. Consequently, no monitoring was warranted for this aspect of the objective. This element was monitored in depth following the flood of 1997, and adjustments made to sediment production rates and management practices accordingly. Findings from the monitoring done for the July 2015 storms were found to be within the current assumptions (see fiscal year 2015 Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report). The Forest monitored the application of geologic standards and guidelines by conducting field reviews of the McBaldy Project, Little Deer Fire Restoration 1 The Forest Plan, as amended, is located at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/planning.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES ~ FEMA EM - 3287-CA Total Incidents from 6/22/08 - 8/06/08
    CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES ~ FEMA EM - 3287-CA Total Incidents from 6/22/08 - 8/06/08 BEAR WALLOW SHF JUNE LIGHTNING 12,067 Acres 31 Acres Started 6/21/2008 Started 6/21/2008 UKONOM COMPLEX PANTHER FIRE ALPS COMPLEX 43,390 Acres 11,022 Acres 3,026 Acres Started 6/23/2008 Started 7/24/2008 WHISKEYTOWN COMPLEX Started 6/21/2008 6,240 Acres BLUE 2 FIRE SISKIYOU Started 6/21/2008 6,950 Acres COMPLEX GOULD FIRE Started 6/20/2008 57,785 Acres 229 Acres SHU LIGHTNING COMPLEX PETERSON COMPLEX Started 6/21/2008 Started 6/21/2008 86,500 Acres 7,842 Acres Started 6/21/2008 Started 6/21/2008 MAD COMPLEX DEL 3,705 Acres NORTE CORRAL FIRE Started 6/20/2008 12,434 Acres SISKIYOU Started 6/23/2008 MODOC IRON COMPLEX TGU LIGHTNING COMPLEX 83,340 Acres 22,907 Acres Started 6/21/2008 Started 6/21/2008 HELL'S HALF COMPLEX 15,146 Acres LMU JUNE LIGHTNING Started 6/20/2008 SHASTA 50 Acres Started 6/21/2008 LIME COMPLEX HUMBOLDT 63,192 Acres LASSEN Started 6/20/2008 CUB COMPLEX MILL COMPLEX 19,718 Acres 2,100 Acres HUMBOLDT COMPLEX Started 6/21/2008 Started 6/22/2008 1,325 Acres TRINITY Started 6/21/2008 CANYON COMPLEX RICH FIRE TEHAMA 6,570 Acres PLUMAS 37,357 Acres Started 7/29/2008 YOLLA BOLLY COMPLEX Started6/21/2008 6,625 Acres Started 6/21/2008 CRAIG FIRE GLENN SIERRA YUBA RIVER COMPLEX BUTTE 2,500 Acres MEU LIGHTNING COMPLEX 4,254 Acres Started 8/03/2008 54,817 Acres Started 6/21/2008 Started 6/21/2008 MENDOCINO COLUSA YUBA AMERICAN RIVER COMPLEX LAKE NEVADA SODA COMPLEX 20,541 Acres 8,632 Acres Started 6/21/2008 Started 6/21/2008 SUTTER PLACER CAPPS FIRE
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests
    A GUIDE TO Priority Plant and Animal Species IN OREGON FORESTS A publication of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute Sponsors of the first animal and plant guidebooks included the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Oregon State University and the Oregon State Implementation Committee, Sustainable Forestry Initiative. This update was made possible with help from the Northwest Habitat Institute, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University and Oregon State University. Acknowledgments: The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is grateful to the following contributors: Thomas O’Neil, Kathleen O’Neil, Malcolm Anderson and Jamie McFadden, Northwest Habitat Institute; the Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System (IBIS), supported in part by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration under project #2003-072-00 and ESRI Conservation Program grants; Sue Vrilakas, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources; and Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University, Mark Gourley, Starker Forests and Mike Rochelle, Weyerhaeuser Company. Edited by: Fran Cafferata Coe, Cafferata Consulting, LLC. Designed by: Sarah Craig, Word Jones © Copyright 2012 A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests Oregonians care about forest-dwelling wildlife and plants. This revised and updated publication is designed to assist forest landowners, land managers, students and educators in understanding how forests provide habitat for different wildlife and plant species. Keeping forestland in forestry is a great way to mitigate habitat loss resulting from development, mining and other non-forest uses. Through the use of specific forestry techniques, landowners can maintain, enhance and even create habitat for birds, mammals and amphibians while still managing lands for timber production.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit Fire Plan
    Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit Fire Plan 2020 MMU Strategic Fire Plan Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit Fire Plan 2020 UNIT STRATEGIC FIRE PLAN AMENDMENTS Page Section Date Numbers Description of Update Updated By Updated Updated 4/2020 Contents Page i-ii 2020 Update P4224 4/2020 Signature Page 1 Annual Update P4224 4/2020 Executive 2 Update C4200 Summary 4/2020 I Update P4224 4/2020 II None P4224 4/2020 III Update P4224 4/2020 IV Update B4220 4/2020 IV (B) Update F4208 3/2020 V Update All Battalions 4/2020 Appendix A Update P4224 4/2020 Appendix B None P4224 4/2020 Appendix C None P4224 4/2020 Appendix C-1 None P4224 4/2020 Appendix C-2 None P4224 4/2020 Appendix D None B4220 4/2020 Appendix E Update B4220 3/2020 Appendix F New P4224 4/2020 Appendix G Update B4211 3/2020 Appendix H None B4212 3/2020 Appendix I Update B4214 4/2020 Appendix J None B4215 4/2020 Appendix K None B16 4/2020 Appendix L None B17 3/2020 Appendix M Update B18 4/2020 Appendix N Update D4206 4/2020 Exhibits: Maps None GIS 4/2020 Accomplishments Update Various i Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit Fire Plan 2020 Table of Contents UNIT STRATEGIC FIRE PLAN AMENDMENTS ............................................................. i Table of Contents .............................................................................................................ii SIGNATURE PAGE ........................................................................................................ 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CAL FIRE 2014 Madera Mariposa Merced Unit
    Last update: 1 Feb 2012 UNIT STRATEGIC FIRE PLAN AMENDMENTS Page Numbers Description Updated Date Section Updated Updated of Update By 4/14 Contents Page ii 2014 Update P4224 5/14 Signature Page 1 Annual Update C4200 4/13 Executive Summary 2 Re-Write C4200 5/13 I 3-6 Re-Write 4200 5/14 II 7-8 Update P4224 4/13 III 9-10 Re-Write NK 4/13 IV 11-19 Update B4220 5/14 V 20-38 Update All Battalions 4/14 Appendix A 39-43 Update F4207 4/14 Appendix B 44 Update C4200 4/13 Appendix C 45-49 Update JP 4/13 Appendix C-1 50 Update JP 4/14 Appendix D 51 Update C4201 4/14 Appendix E 52 Update B4220 4/14 Appendix F 55-56 Update B4211 4/14 Appendix G 57-60 Update B4212 4/14 Appendix H 57-60 Update B4214 4/14 Appendix I 61-62 Update B4215 4/14 Appendix J 63-65 Update B16 4/14 Appendix K 66 Update B17 4/14 Appendix L 67-68 Update B18 4/13 Appendix M 69 Update JP 4/13 Exhibits: Maps 70-77 Update JP 6/1 Accomplishments 78-80 Re-Write P4224 i Last update: 1 May 2014 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ii SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2 SECTION I: UNIT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 3 UNIT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Partnerships Embracing Fire As a Resource for a Resilient Future
    Back to the future: partnerships embracing fire as a resource for a resilient future Living with fire in California’s Coast Ranges: Session 22 May 8, 2018 photo: David Ackerly Dr. Lisa Micheli, President Will Harling, Co-Director Pepperwood Foundation mission to advance science-based conservation throughout our region and beyond The Dwight Center for Conservation Science 3200-acre scientific preserve in Sonoma County BAveg Fire probability increases with projected climate <allchange other values> Change in Projected Fire Return Interval HOLLAND1 1971-2000 2070-2099 2070-2099 Urban or Built-up Land 1971-2000 Hot2070-2099 and Low Rainfall 2070-2099Warm and Probability Hot and Low Rainfall WarmModerate and BAveg(percent) High : 0.3 ModerateRainfall Rainfall<all other values> HOLLAND1Low : 0.1 Urban or Built-up Land ProbabilitySCAPOSD parcels (percent)Regional parks High : 0.3 Low : 0.1 ¯ 0 5 10 20 Miles Warm, Moderate Where are the most fire-prone Current Hot, Low Rainfall Rainfall parts of the region? Variable Units 1971-2000 2040-2069 2070-2099 2040-2069 2070-2099 Probability of burning 1 Percent 0.17 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.23 or more times SD 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 Climate Ready North Bay, 2016 Pepperwood’s 2015 Fire Mitigation and Forest Health Initiative in response to Valley Fire Fire risk reduction strategies Treatment options are demonstrated at Pepperwood and shared via workshops, field tours, and outreach Five+ years pre-fire “baseline data” Topo-climate-variability of temp, rainfall and humidity across preserve, and interface of coastal-inland
    [Show full text]
  • (“BLWM”) Is a Regional Law Firm with Offices in Scottsdale, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada and Portland, Oregon
    Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell, PLLC (“BLWM”) is a regional law firm with offices in Scottsdale, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada and Portland, Oregon. Its attorneys practice in the western United States, with attorneys currently licensed to practice law in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Texas and Washington. BLWM devotes its practice to investigation, resolution and management of complex litigation. Our goal is to provide our clients with cost-effective and creative solutions tailored to the client's needs, cost containment and unparalleled results. Included within our broad range of litigation services are our multi-state large loss property subrogation program, construction defect litigation, and general litigation for insurance companies and businesses. In addition to the substantive areas of law where they practice, our attorneys also are trained in forensic failure analysis, evidence acquisition and retention, forensic photography, property and liability insurance, products liability, code compliance, expert selection, and fire cause and origin determinations. We provide our clients with a full array of litigation related services ranging from oversight of forensic investigations, litigation in state and federal courts, mediations, and arbitration or trial services. We are not a traditional insurance firm. BLWM does not try to be everything to every client. Rather we limit our practice to areas that are complimentary of the other areas in which we practice. We leverage this experience to direct, contain and control the cases we handle to produce results consistent with our clients' expectations and entitlement. Our practice areas are described in detail in the pages that follow. In addition, you can learn more about our attorneys in the following pages, or by visiting www.blwmlawfirm.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Protection
    3.6 FIRE PROTECTION 3.6 FIRE PROTECTION The following section describes fire protection resources and issues for the existing conditions of the subject site and vicinity; and evaluates impacts of the proposed project on these resources. Fire protection resources include the entities tasked with combating fires, infrastructure that assists those entities, and site conditions that contribute to or diminish the danger of fire. Fire protection issues in the eastern Montecito consist of high fire hazards related to wildfires and the distance of existing residences from fire stations, as well as their length of emergency response times. Assessment of fire protection issues is based upon a range of sources. These include the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. In addition, information and standards were also obtained from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), as well as the Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) and Los Padres National Forest. Montecito Fire Protection District (MFPD) staff was consulted regarding fire protection and response time issues. Finally, this section also includes updated information from the MFPD’s 2014 Standards of Coverage Study and Risk Assessment (MFPD 2014). 3.6.1 Existing Conditions 3.6.1.1 Regional Fire Danger On average, a major wildland fire occurs in the Santa Barbara area approximately every 3.5 years (Table 3.6-1). As a result of weather conditions, plant types, and past fire management policies, the Santa Ynez Mountains and surrounding area have a very high risk of fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit E: Botanical and Wildlife Resources
    E5.0 BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES This section on the terrestrial resources (plants and wildlife) associated with the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (Project) contains the following elements: • A description of the existing botanical and wildlife resources in the study area (see Figure E5.1-1) • A discussion of agency consultation related to terrestrial resources • Summaries of the studies conducted by PacifiCorp on wildlife and vegetation • A summary of proposed enhancement measures • A discussion of continuing impacts E5.1 HISTORICAL TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES The terrestrial resources in the Project vicinity historically have been affected by humans for a long period of time. Much of the information on Native American use of the Klamath River Canyon comes from the archaeological investigations conducted by Gleason (2001). Native Americans have been part of the Klamath River ecosystem for at least the last 7,500 years (Gleason, 2001). The Upland Takelma, Shasta, Klamath, and Modoc tribes all used various portions of the study area; the Yurok Tribe historically used the lands along the Lower Klamath River. Before settlement by Europeans, Native Americans affected terrestrial resources through clearing vegetation for villages; harvesting plants and animals for food, medicine, and other uses; and using fire to manage vegetation. The most intensive uses occurred close to the river. Apparently, many of the flat terraces in the canyon were used at one time or another as village- sized settlements. The existing Topsy Grade Road is near the site of a Native American trail. Beginning in about 1870, homesteaders established ranches in the Klamath River Canyon. Apparently, the canyon was mostly unoccupied by any Native American tribes after this time.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildland Urban Interface Fire Protection Research Colloquium
    This space for GIS map depicting WUI Fire impacted states to be on inside cover Proceedings of the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Protection Research Colloquium California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA June 17-18, 2009 Cover photo: San Diego Union-Tribune Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes, equipment, or services does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United states Government or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or any of its employees or contractors. This material is based upon work supported by the US Department of Homeland Security under Award Number: 2008-ST-061-ND 0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Department of Homeland Security. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Protection Colloquium Preface The Wildland Urban Interface Fire Colloquium, held June 17-18, 2009, was one in a series of four hazards colloquia co-sponsored and funded by two Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology (DHS S&T) Directorate organizations, the Infrastructure and Geophysical Division (IGD) and the Office of University Programs (OUP). Other Colloquia in this series addressed coastal hazards (December 2008), geotechnical earthquake engineering (July 2009) and tsunamis (October 2009). Each hazards colloquium convened scientists, academics, and policy-makers to discuss the current state of research and identify knowledge gaps. Topics centered around the phenomenology of natural hazards and the impact of natural hazards on the built and natural environment. The outcomes of the colloquia were used to assemble individual Proceedings reports similar to the document you are about to read.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 195/Thursday, October 8, 2015/Proposed Rules
    60834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules $4 million, the determination must now offerors to proceed to phase two. Any burden Government’s interest and is consistent have a higher level of approval for the caused by this rule is expected to be minimal with the purposes and objectives of the contracting officer to select more than and will not be any greater on small two-phase design-build selection five offerors. A potential offeror may be businesses than it is on large businesses. procedures. The contracting officer shall The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or more inclined to invest their pre-award conflict with any other Federal rules. No document this determination in the efforts on solicitations where they have alternative approaches were considered. It is contract file. For acquisitions greater an increased chance of award. not anticipated that the proposed rule will than $4 million, the determination shall have a significant economic impact on small be approved by the head of the III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 entities. contracting activity, delegable to a level Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and The Regulatory Secretariat has no lower than the senior contracting 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs submitted a copy of the IRFA to the official within the contracting activity. and benefits of available regulatory Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small * * * * * alternatives and, if regulation is Business Administration. A copy of the [FR Doc. 2015–25613 Filed 10–7–15; 8:45 am] necessary, to select regulatory IRFA may be obtained from the BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P approaches that maximize net benefits Regulatory Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Identifier Guide: Data Report
    A Publication of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Unit Identifier Guide: Data Report PMS 931 - Published Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 Sponsored for NWCG publication by the NWCG Data Management Committee. Prepared and maintained by the Unit Identifier Unit. Questions regarding the content of this product should be directed to the NWCG Unit Identifier Unit (UIU), National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S Development Avenue, Boise ID 83705, or to the UIU members listed on the NWCG Web site at http://www.nwcg.gov. Questions and comments may also be emailed to [email protected]. This product is available electronically on the NWCG Web site at http://www.nwcg.gov. Previous editions: none. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) has approved the contents of this product for the guidance of its member agencies and is not responsible for the interpretation or use of this information by anyone else. NWCG’s intent is to specifically identify all copyrighted content used in NWCG products. All other NWCG information is in the public domain. Use of public domain information, including copying, is permitted. Use of NWCG information within another document is permitted, if NWCG information is accurately credited to the NWCG. The NWCG logo may not be used except on NWCG authorized information. “National Wildfire Coordinating Group”, “NWCG”, and the NWCG logo are trademarks of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names or trademarks in this product is for the information and convenience of the reader and does not constitute an endorsement by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group or its member agencies of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
    [Show full text]
  • US Forest Service's Response
    Public Scoping Comments on the Santa Barbara Mountain Communities Defense Zone Project Letter Comment Response # # Assigned To: Public Comment Forest Service Response 1 4 Botany Concerned about the introduction of non-native species. This was addressed in the weed risk assessment. Noxious weed populations in the fuel breaks are likely to increase and persist. However, any existing or new infestations will be hand treated and removed. 2 5 Botany A much more important project would be to control the several Weed treatments along Highway 154 are the responsibility of Cal invasive species along the 154 including French broom, fennel, Trans. pampas grass, pepper tree, fountain grass, acacia, yellow star thistle, etc. 3 14 Botany The excessive widths employed in the construction of the Gaviota The location of the project bisects the manzanita population in the Refugio fuelbreak will likely cause a significant loss for the Gaviota area which is approximately the eastern one quarter of the sensitive species, Refugio manzanita (Arctostaphylos total population range and the majority of the population east of refugioensis). The fuelbreak is proposed to run down the center of Highway 101. It is also bisects all of the population that occurs on the species only area of distribution. the National Forest. The amount of the total population that will be affected is very small though perceptible and while a number of individuals will be affected, I stand by my determination that the project will not result in a decrease in viability or trend toward Federal listing for this species. 3 15 Botany The Proposed Action does not specify any mitigation measures for Individuals will be lost though in many cases will sprout back.
    [Show full text]